Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:I used to love going to the theater (Score 1) 177

I used to love going to the theater but it sucks now. It's too expensive, too crowded, and I don't want to watch 15 minutes of product endorsements followed by 20 minutes of spoilers for upcoming films before they get around to showing the feature.

Mr. Cameron, you say you want to "preserve the theater experience as something special" but it hasn't been "special" in twenty years. It's the entertainment industry's version of going to the airport. It's only a matter of time before they start adding backscatter body scanners and abusive TSA (Theater Security Agency) officers.

I believe Cameron isn't saying that things are good now. He's saying things need to be improved if you want to cut down on piracy.

As in the theatre experience sucks now that people don't want to go, so that creates an opportunity for pirates. Instead, theatres need to reinvent themselves to be destinations where people want to go, which would have an impact on piracy - why would I want to see it on a small crappy screen when I can see it on a large screen and everything's better.

So ditch the crappy uncomfortable seats and replace them with nice ones that won't cause your back to ache after an hour, have special no-kids screenings or adult-only theatres, serve adult beverages and even hot food service with better food, etc.

Some theatres already do that, and they're popular. They're expensive, but you're getting a movie experience free for annoyances like screaming kids, people on cellphones (you pay for premium tickets, people frown on such antisocial behavior), you can have beer, wine, champagne, cocktails, etc delivered to your seat, the seats are not packed sardine style, etc. Dinner/movie/date/whatever.

Basically get rid of the crap that people hate which drive them away from the theatre, and make it more appealing to those who want a social "night out" experience where you can enjoy a meal, a drink, and wrap your arm around your significant other.

Comment Re:This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 174

Not necessarily. Take a look at the relevant portion of the Lantham Act. It would have to fit one of the provisions therein. It might make a false suggestion of affiliation, but it's arguable.

15 U.S.C. 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Comment Re:anti-science environmentalists (Score 1) 156

Actually, it's thoroughly impossible to tell how the new standards work based upon by the linked articles, but it sounds like in plain language that Florida is using a computer model that could allow more flexibility in discharge permitting. This can lead to better results, whether your definition of better is "more rationally defensible" or "more in line with what my donors want." Determining which way it is better requires review by a competent expert. It might be both.

The real issue here is this phrase from TFA: "one of a kind." That's not so good.

It's important in managing environmental data to do things in the usual way. This is contrary to the way public thinks about new technologies. If there's a new iPhone, you expect it to be better in every way or at least as good. It's not like that with scientific methods; new techniques are proposed because they have certain advantages, obviously. But they always have one big disadvantage: their results are hard to compare with what you already know. You need to do a lot of work to justify doing things a new way, otherwise you can find yourself unable to compare what is happening now to what was happening before.

Fortunately Florida can't do this on its own; it has to get EPA approval. Since this is an administration that is generally favorable to environmental regulation, if they can get this past Obama's EPA that will help give these new methods more credibility.

Comment Re:As a UNIX head and former MS-hater . . . (Score 1) 169

Y'know, Microsoft has never made any bones about their OS being a proprietary system.

Windows made money selling copies. Apple makes money taking a cut of every sale in their walled garden. Google makes money data mining the shit out of everything. The new Microsoft seems to want to be the old Microsoft + Apple + Google. It used to be pick your poison, now it's all of the above. I hope they choke on it.

Comment This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 174

You violate a trademark if you mis-represent a good or service as that of the trademark holder. And it has to be in the same trademark category that they registered. Having a trademark does not grant ownership of a word, and does not prevent anyone else from using that word. Use of a trademark in reporting and normal discussion is not a violation.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 538

> designed to ignore large flat signs that cross above the road.

Yeah, maybe ones the car can fit under. But there are no signs 'above' the road that are only 4 foot above it, that's an object you need to avoid.

AFAIK, the radar array in the Tesla S has mostly a horizontal footprint with only a single vertical positioned antenna element for detecting height. Given the typical noise in radar, that probably doesn't give much angular resolution to accurately determine the height of an object w/o lot of tracking and noise rejection. With low angular vertical resolution, it might be hard to tell if it is 4 foot or 8 foot above the road (which isn't always flat**) until the car is too close to do anything about it.

If the software was taught to think these kind of targets are usually signs that generally have enough clearance, the software might just wait it out until it gets a better read on the situation rather than spuriously apply the brake.

That being said, I'm sure they will put in better software in the future to get better read on the situation and/or track/filter more noisy radar returns over time to interpolate better vertical resolution. Perhaps they could simply cheat the tuning to be more defensive (e.g., brake at a different threshold of ambiguity), but I suspect that is a losing battle and it is better to make the software smarter than to attempt to tune a more primitive design.

Comment Re:How exactly will they break steam? (Score 1) 394

I'm not being pedantic - you just have to look at the precise meaning of all the words in the past 3 posts just right, and you'll see!

The point of Hanlon's razor is that it's a good life strategy. Feeling that someone's out to get you, especially when there's nothing you can really do about it, will not make you more happy.

Comment Re:How to make a defense under 17 USC 117 (Score 1) 116

And if you buy the Game Pak and a Kazzo or Retrode dumper, you have a defense under 17 USC 117(a)(1) (or foreign counterparts) if someone does sue you, so long as you can afford a lawyer and don't distribute the dumps.

Actually, no. That defense doesn't work because you're format-shifting. More specifically, you're going from a format that doesn't have copyright to one that does - you are not allowed to dump ROMs, period, without a legitimate developmental reason.

It's a funny thing, but a mask programmed ROM is actually not copyrighted. It's Mask-protected (it's a M in a circle, similar to how copyright is C in a circle). Mask works have higher protections, and even though you can easily dump it, the conversion from physical to software is actually completely illegal.

The one exception to that, is for developmental reasons - you're developing something that requires the data in the ROM. In which case you are allowed to have it only for that reason for the duration necessary. (Sony v. Bleem confirmed this when Bleem had Sony BIOS dumps of the PSX - it was determined that Bleem had the legal right to have those dumps, as they were necessary for the development of the Bleem emulator. But Bleem could not distribute those dumps, and must destroy them when complete).

It's one of the reasons why Nintendo kept cartridges around - there are plenty of legal protections for software embedded inside of a ROM (more generally, any IC) that aren't available on more traditionally available media.

Comment Re:It will succeed, or at the very least, won't fa (Score 1) 116

Yeah its called "crap hardware that made it prohibitively expensive if not downright impossible to port" which is exactly what will kill this turkey as well.

Look here is what you and Big N just don't seem to be grasping, its a hell of a lot different now than it was during the days of the classic consoles, games are INSANELY expensive to produce now and every penny you have to spend above initial development could mean the difference between profit and loss. Now lets look at the competition....you have X86 Xbox, X86 Playstation, and X86 PC....what do they have in common? Oh yeah X86! Thanks to two of the big three consoles being X86 a dev house only has to make one game and then do some minor tweaks to release for all 3 platforms.

But if this is legit what you will have is 3 platforms you can release on with coding your game in X86 versus only 1 console if you port to Nintendo and if that wasn't enough if TFS is to be believed its gonna be underpowered to boot which means they'd basically have to start from scratch and code specifically for this thing.....companies simply aren't gonna do that, not when there are so many PS4, XB1, and PC players that they can sell to.

And this isn't even addressing the rotten elephant in the room which is the consoles today are already being pushed to the limits which is why we are about to get Xbox Scorpio and Sony Neo....and you expect to have devs code a version of the game for a system that isn't even as powerful as what they are coding on now when they are already having to use every trick in the book just to get their monster titles to run?

When the wii U came out you had game dev after game dev saying "our game engine won't run on that" and ignoring it and mark my words, the same will be true here. this will sell strictly to the most hardcore of fanboys who will buy anything a new Mario or Zelda comes out on but as we saw with the Wii U there just isn't enough of them to make a console viable, but the ONLY way you'll see a GTA or CoD or Dark Souls on this thing is if its a crap smartphone game using the name.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...